Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands: past, present and future

(1)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

HERITAGE

MANAGEMENT IN THE

NETHERLANDS

Fifty Years State Service for Archaeological

Investigations

WJ.H. Willems, H. Kars & D.P. Hallewas (eds.)

Van Gorcum

1997

Rijksdienst voor het

(2)

Preface

Starting in the 1980s and especially during the last decade, the contexts of Dutch archaeological practice have changed considerably. The growing awareness of the rapid erosion of the archaeological record, increased public concern and support for heritage management, involvement at all levels of government, and the lively debate about the necessary restructuring of Dutch archaeology that arose after signing the Convention of Valletta in 1992, have already led to important changes. New legislation, the introduction of con-tract archaeology in excavations, the growing recognition of the role of ar-chaeological resource management - and of cultural resource management in general - as an important factor in spatial planning and, last but not least, the changed mission and organisation of the ROB (Rijksdienst voor het

Oudheid-kundig Bodemonderzoek - the Dutch State Service for Archaeological

Investi-gations) will lead to a radical transformation in the immediate future. At the moment, Dutch archaeology is in a state of transition, and so is the ROB which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. The institute was founded in 1947 as an excavation service and to maintain a national register, a data-base of archaeological finds and monuments. It is now changing into a natio-nal centre for the management and research of the archaeological heritage. The contributions in this anniversary publication are intended to give an over-view of the development and present concerns of archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands in an international context.

Although it covers a wide range of subjects, this publication does not aim to give a complete coverage of all relevant aspects. Some obvious topics are lacking. For example, a translation of the revised Dutch Monuments Act of

1988 has been included but there is no separate chapter on legislation because a new revision will be necessary - which is currently being

considered. Aspects of this are discussed in the first and third chapter, but the Minister of State for Cultural Affairs, A. Nuis, has just sent a letter to parliament with an outline for the implementation of 'Malta', as the Con-vention of Valletta is commonly referred to, in Dutch law. By the time this book will appear in print, discussion of his letter in parliament will hopefully have provided the guidelines for a revision.

Nevertheless, we hope that our anniversary publication, which is the first of its kind in the Netherlands, can also be of use as a handbook for students and colleagues and will provide archaeologists and heritage managers abroad with a clearer picture of Dutch archaeological heritage management. For this reason, it has been published in collaboration with Van Gorcum Publishers and not as an issue of our Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig

Bodemonderzoek. Most but not all contributions have been written especially

for this volume by archaeologists within and outside the ROB and in many cases they are directly inspired by the institute's current policies, concerns and priorities. Obviously, many of these are currently being revised and refor-mulated as a result of the ROB'S changing position.

(5)

arranged the book into several clusters. The first three chapters are general summaries. The introductory article is concerned with the history, develop-ment, current priorities and future aspects of archaeological heritage

management in the Netherlands. It is followed by a similar contribution from the viewpoint of archaeology underwater and by an analysis of the impact of the Convention of Valletta.

These introductions are followed by two major contributions on predictive modelling and on dealing with the difficult subject of significance, two sub-jects which are currently the focal point of archaeological interest, and by three chapters on the role of conservation science, aerial photography and urban archaeology.

The next three articles report on specific projects: the terpen (the dwelling mounds along the coast), the protection programme on the megalithic monu-ments in the northern part of the country, and a joint heritage management programme with our German neighbour-institute, the Rheinisches Amt für

Bodendenkmalpflege in Bonn. All of these have international aspects, and the

last project, especially, has been specifically designed to create a basis for fruitful cross-frontier collaboration in the future. In an age with increasing impact of European policies and regulations at the national level, not only the exchange of information but practical cooperation in the management of archaeological resources will be vitally important.

These are followed by two chapters devoted to the subject of finds and how to deal with them, the management of collections that result from fieldwork -a tr-adition-al but still highly relev-ant concern.

Finally there is a contribution on documentation, with a discussion of ARCHIS, the archaeological database of the Netherlands that is the essential link in the cyclical process of managing the archaeological archives in our soil, and the book is concluded by a brief résumé of excavations by the ROB.

The title of the ROB'S policy statement for 1997-2000 published earlier'this year, Geef de toekomst een verleden, can be translated as 'A future for our past'. Providing this future is the central task of heritage management and the contents of this book are intended to show how this is being done. As direc-tors of the ROB, we would like to thank the contribudirec-tors, many of whom somehow found time to write despite their very busy daily schedules, and to the editors who had a double task. We are also grateful to mrs. A. Steendijk and mrs. M. Alkemade, whose assistance was indispensable in the final edi-ting of the text and to mr. G.H. Scheepstra, responsible for the illustrations.

Willem J. H. Willems (scientific director) and Henriette C.M van der Linden (managing director)

(6)

Archaeological Heritage Management

in the Netherlands:

Past, Present and Future

WJ.H. Willems

1. ROB 1995, 20-1; ROH 1997 2. Brongers 1973.

3. Waterbolk 1981, 245.

4. In fact, a new revision is currently under consideration (sec 1'ntnrc /VivA>/>m,-m.O; it will be necessary when parliament decides to r a n t v l he Convention of Valletta formally, but changes for other reasons are necessary as well.

5. C.leerc 1984; 1989; Schiffer & Gumeniian 1977.

As in many other countries, archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands has changed a great deal in the past decade or so. Several as-pects of this change are illustrated by the various contributions in this an-niversary publication of the State Service for Archaeological Excavations

(Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek - ROB). These reflect the

current concerns of archaeologists within and outside the ROB, and although a sample, they are to some degree representative of the development in the direction and nature of archaeological research that has taken place. This paper is intended as an introduction, to present a short overview of the histo-ry and development of Dutch archaeological heritage management and to review some current trends.

In recent policy statements,' the management of archaeological resources

(archeologische monumentenzorg, Bodendenkmalpflege} is described as a cyclical

process, based on documentation and registration, followed by the stages of inventarisation, assessing significance, selection, protection/conservation or excavation, interpretation/synthesis and communication, which provide the necessary feedback (fig.l). The stages of this cycle can to some extent also be seen in the development of Dutch heritage management, which took place in three main phases.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries up to the beginning of the Se-cond World War, archaeology was developed as a discipline which soon led to documentation, registration and inventarisations of the archaeological heritage."1 From the second half of the nineteenth century onwards, public

concern about the destruction of cultural resources and the need that was felt to monitor this process and to document the material evidence being des-troyed' gradually led to protective measures and to some involvement at the national level. A second phase starts with the creation of a basic legal frame-work in 1940, followed by a - rather slow - process of development of a sys-tem for the care and protection of archaeological monuments involving legal and other instruments. Perhaps the adoption of a revised Monuments Act (see Appendix) by the Dutch parliament in 1988 is a suitable date for the end of this phase. In any case, as is usual for this type of legislation, the act re-flects the established practice of the past rather than current developments.4

Although the law brought many practical meliorations, it was in fact outdated by the time it was adopted. During the 1980s, major changes took place which transformed thinking about the protection of archaeological monu-ments into a much more dynamic concept of archaeological heritage man-agement. It is too early yet to be able to decide with hindsight when this phase started, but it is clearly embedded in a development that took place on an international scale and that has transformed thinking about the

(7)

Figure 1 The management cycle. SOCIETY INVENTARISATION INTERACTION VALUATION DOCUMENTATION \<— AND REGISTRATION J—> INTERPRETATION

AND SYNTHESIS SELECTION

PROTECTION

EXCAVATION

LEGISLATION

For an overview, see Brongers l

ORIGINS

The first phase starts at the beginning of the nineteenth century, although there are earlier developments. The earliest conscious effort to preserve ar-chaeological resources in the Netherlands preceded the first development of archaeology as an academic discipline.'' It dates back to 1734. Only a few years before, the exotic shipworm (teredo) had wrought havoc on the wood used in Dutch coastal defences, which led to an urgent need for stone. Local entrepreneurs considered the megalithic tombs (hunebedden or 'Huns' beds') in the province of Drenthe a suitable source and the local government had to take action to prevent these from being destroyed. It resulted in the first Dutch ordinance for the protection of a specific category of archaeological monuments.

This first instance of government action on behalf of a category of monu-ments perceived to be important memorials of the past was followed by a few other ordinances and decrees in later decades. It cannot, however, be

(8)

A R C I I A K O l . O U I C A I . HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERI.ANI IS

7 H g , Brongers l 071, 10, Van Regieren Aliéna 1990, 1-2.

8. Van der Waals l WO, 245. On the nationa-listic clement m, for example, the brondU contemporaneous developments in Scandi-navia, sec e.g. Moberg 1981, 210 9. E.g., Daniel & Renfrew l WH, Schnapp

1993.

10. The so-called Suiiilu<nir/v>i, produced at the instigation of the governor of the province.

11 Rcuvetis, I.eenians & Janssen 1845 For an overview of the various maps, see Van l;.s,

Sarfatij & Woltering 1988, 210-1 and /oei brood ci u/., this volume

12. The famous publication by V. de Stucrs

(Holland «f>-,,„ mialv') is ofu-n considered lo

have provided the trigger, see Heck a <il 1975, although the effect mav be overrated and the process was much more gradual (Duparc 1975, 2).

H. Modderman 1955, 5. MOM were founded in the 19th or in the beginning of the 20th centuries.

14. E.g., Meek ci ,il 1975, M i l

15. Waterbolk 1973, 1981. See also Groenen-dijk, this volume, on the history and current management policy of the icrp,-n

16. Met/, this volume.

The basis for such a policy was created in 1818, with the foundation of the State Museum of Antiquities (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden) and the appoint-ment of its first director, CJ.C. Reuvens, to the newly created chair in ar-chaeology at the University of Leiden. As has been noted elsewhere,7 this was

in fact the very first chair in the world to include national, non-classical ar-chaeology as a subject. Although there are no indications that, as in other countries, the development of national archaeology was motivated by strong patriotic or ideological motives/ the Dutch situation can be placed in the framework of contemporary developments elsewhere in Europe in the same period, with the emergence of prehistory as a scientific discipline," and a growing interest in national antiquities and their preservation. It is not sur-prising that in the same period, and by coincidence even in the same year, 1818, a report was published on the condition of antiquities in the province of Drenthe.10

Reuvens had a keen interest in prehistory, and one of his important achie-vements was the start of a documentation system of archaeological sites at the national level. His archaeological map of the Netherlands, the first of its kind, was published posthumously by his successors in 1845 and was followed in later decades by other archaeological atlases." These were published by the State Museum of Antiquities, which was responsible for the documenta-tion of archaeological finds and sites and remained the primary centre of Dutch archaeology for more than a century.

In the course of the nineteenth century, most of the megalithic tombs in Drenthe, the traditional showpieces of Dutch archaeological monuments, were bought by the state or provincial governments in order to safeguard them from further destruction. In addition, various regional organisations originated which were not only actively involved with research but also with aspects of documentation and conservation of archaeological sites. It took, however, until the late nineteenth century before any systematic heritage management was organised at the national level in the Netherlands, triggered by the ongoing destruction of historic buildings.12

Although it took even longer before archaeological remains became a serious concern at the state level, further developments of archaeological heritage management started around the turn of the century, when a network of often very active regional societies was more or less complete." An important role at the national level was played by the Dutch Antiquarian Society

(Neder-landse Oudheidkundige Bond), founded in 1899, which was a driving force for

legislation and was concerned with both the archaeological heritage and his-toric buildings.14 An example of a regional initiative with larger consequences

was the decision, in 1908, to monitor the destruction of the terpen in the province of Groningen and to prevent the loss of scientific information: the soil was dug away to be used as fertilizer for the acid soils in the hinterland. In 1920, this led to the foundation of the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in Groningen by A.E. van Giffen, and to intensive research in the northern Netherlands, where prehistoric landscapes were being destroyed because of the reclamation and afforestation of heathlands and moorland reclamations.H

Van Giffen was also one of the first archaeologists to develop excavation tech-niques which were not only a major contribution to the technical and

(9)

conserva-tion and restoraconserva-tion, notably of tumuli, was also practised for the first time.17

In addition, major public works such as the beginning of the drainage of the Zuiderzee were monitored;'s the work provided an important stimulus for the

emerging early medieval archaeology in this period, but did not have the same effect on nautical archaeology.'" Nevertheless, in 1944 the practice of conserving newly discovered shipwrecks by burying them under suitable wa-terlogged conditions was first developed.20

These and other developments demonstrate that - albeit on a limited scale - some actual steps were taken to preserve the archaeological record although official involvement with the archaeological part of the heritage remained minimal. The government had established a small Culture and Science Department within the Ministry of the Interior by the end of the nine-teenth century, later transferred to the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, and it had announced a Monuments Act in the Queen's speech of 1928. Although nothing came of this before the war, presumably because of the recession and prewar developments, specific regulations for archaeology had evidently been prepared and were rapidly put into force by decree in May 1940, just days after the German invasion of the Netherlands.21

17. This was not limited to the northern part of the country: see Verwers 1980, 5-10 for an account of the excavation and restoration of Bronze Age barrows in the province of Noord-Brabant in 1935.

18. Braat 1932.

I') Compare Van Regieren Aliéna 1990, 2-3 on the development of medieval archaeology in the Netherlands and Maarleveld, this volume, on nautical archaeology. 20. Remders 1986; Van Es, Sarfatij & Woltering 1988, 186-9.

21. Van Es 1972, 17.

22. Van Es 1972; a recent overview in Wil-lems 1992.

23. Van Es 1972, 19.

24. For a short overview, see Clccre 1989, 1-5.

25. Stoepker 1977, 218-9; Van Regieren Aliéna 1990, 3.

THE FORMATIVE PERIOD

The decrees of 1940, which established a State Commission for Archaeology and which eventually led to the foundation of the ROB in 1947, mark the be-ginning of the second phase in the development of heritage management. They have been extensively described in the 25th anniversary issue of the

Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (HKOIÏ)

and need not be repeated here in great detail.22 The regulations brought

so-me order in the organisation of Dutch archaeology in that they provided the instruments for a national policy which had been lacking in the previous pha-se when the number of mupha-seums, regional societies and, finally, professional institutes, had steadily increased.2' Although the effect was limited,

excava-tion activities and the deposiexcava-tion of finds were now regulated for the first time.

In 1947, a new start was made with the foundation of the ROB, which was intended as the central state institute to carry out excavations and to docu-ment the archaeological heritage of the Netherlands. This docudocu-mentation was to be the basis for a list of monuments and for provisions for their protection and maintenance, although a Monuments Act was still lacking at that time. It was presented to parliament in 1955, but came into effect only after lengthy discussions in 1961.

As elsewhere in Europe after the war,24 heritage management initially took

the form of rescue archaeology in areas where large-scale destruction had occurred. It continued during the economic boom of the 1950s and 60s, which also allowed substantial increases in financial and other means. Al-though the development of towns and of new infrastructure in the countryside led to an unprecedented loss of archaeological information, major public works did include conscious efforts to preserve it. From the very start, the ROB was heavily involved with excavations in the many churches that had been destroyed during the war and were being reconstructed.25 But there

(10)

A U r . I I A l i O I . O O K - . A l . HlîRITAOK MANACÎF.MENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

Figure 2 Rescue excavation of a third-century Germanie settlement at Kaalte (o) in 1994. The traditional problem of archaeological heritage management in the postwar decades that has far from disppeared (photo: Lex Broere).

26. Cf., Modderman 1951, 25. Sec also Louwe Kooijmans 1994, 41.

27. Following the dissolution of this State Service and the creation of the new Province of Flevoland, its various departments have been discontinued or placed elsewhere. See !<»" I"92, 7 and 227; see Reinders !<>8o and Maarleveld, this volume, for historic devel-opments.

8. Relations were strained, among other things as a consequence of the government's decision in 1950 to make the KOI, the only institute entitled to carry out excavations (a situation that in reality never came to he); see for further details Van Es 1972. 29. E.g., Waterbolk 1984, 17. See also note 31.

30. Some of these are still very small and lack an excavation permit. For an overview of towns and archaeology in the Nether-lands, see Sarfatij 1990. Recent discussion on the role of archaeology at the municipal level in: Knoop & Jansen 1994.

31. Van Es et al. 1982.

and other. The detailed surveys in the Dutch river area led to the discovery of large numbers of new sites that were published by the archaeologist P.J.R. Modderman in a series of papers published around 1950.26 The ROB was also

involved with the large-scale land reclamation projects in the IJsselmeer, the new polders, where settlements, submerged seadikes and especially many shipwrecks were soon discovered. Eventually, this enterprise developed into the creation of a specialised nautical archaeology department with the local authority, the ;R£rè)for the IJsselmeerpolders, which existed from 1954 until 1992.27 The favourable economic situation also allowed the increase of

ar-chaeological institutes at Dutch universities: between 1951 and 1971, four new institutes were established. Although relations between the various pro-fessional institutions were far from ideal in the first two decades after the war,28 it is remarkable that the split between academic archaeology and

her-itage management that characterises the archaeological communities in many other European countries, did not arise even in this period. On the one hand, the ROB embodied the fundamental unity of research and heritage management and, on the other, university institutes have always taken a sub-stantial part in the necessary rescue excavations by incorporating them in their research. Excavations for purely academic reasons were never excluded, nor were they ever lacking, but heritage management has greatly benefited from the fact that research in the form of what in Germany is sometimes described by the wonderful term Lustgrabung, has been very limited in the Netherlands after the war.2"

Apart from the actions taken at the national level, from 1960 onwards ar-chaeological heritage management was also gradually embedded at the municipal and provincial levels. In 1960, Rotterdam was the first Dutch city with a town archaeologist, six more were appointed in the decade between

1970 and 1980, and since then 25 other Dutch towns have established some sort of municipal archaeological service."1 In 1982, the ROB published a report

inspired by the famous British study The Erosion of History, on the rapidly deteriorating condition of archaeological remains in historic Dutch towns." It was used to convince local authorities of the importance of including ar-chaeological investigations in the process of urban development. At the pro-vincial level, a system of propro-vincial archaeologists was introduced between

(11)

32. For the three northern provinces, the provincial archaeologist was attached to the University of Groningen: in itself a curious construction with a specific historical hack-ground, but also evidence of the involvement nf the university with heritage management. A description of'the system as it functioned in the 1970s is given by Van Es 1972, 31. 33. Maarleveld, this volume

34. Waterbolk 1981, 250, Slofstra 1994, 13. « Louwe Kooiimans 1994,41-2. 36. Klok 1972, esp. 90 ff.

37. In 1971, the KOB had started a series of small guidebooks to archaeological monu-ments (Archeologische monumenten in

Neder-land} which did not, however, succeed in

reaching a large public The series was discontinued in 1990 and replaced by a variety of other products, such as a now quite popular series with itineraries in various landscapes (Archeologische Rouies in

Nederland], combining archaeological w i t h

other information on the natural and cultural landscape.

establish one archaeologist for every province, with a specific task in heritage management.12 The system has proved to be quite successful, because it

generated cooperation between central and regional authorities. Finally, a structural basis for the management of the underwater heritage was created at the national level by establishing a small unit for underwater archaeology at the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture in 1985."

Although official involvement with the archaeological heritage thus developed rapidly in the postwar decades, social and economic developments created an enormous demand that soaked up almost all available finances and man-power. The gradual destruction of major parts of the Dutch landscapes that had taken place during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was followed by a new phase of expansion. This time, however, within a context of economic growth and with an organisational infrastructure in place. Even though this structure grew rapidly, it was stretched to its limits in coping with the ever increasing demands on available space for new housing projects, industrial and agricultural activities, roads, etc. One of the responses to these circumstances was the development of large-scale settlement research.

On the one hand, this change was part of the general shift of interest from burial archaeology to settlement archaeology after the war." On the other hand, it was a direct response to the increased threat to settlement-sites and the fact that their location could be traced by means of archaeological sur-veys. Excavations such as those of the Linear Bandceramic settlement at Sittard (/,, 1953-56) and the Roman-Period settlement near Wijster (n,

1956-58) set the tone. They were followed by a whole series of similar large-scale excavations that have become the trademark of the ROB, but which were characteristic for Dutch archaeology as a whole. All of these excavations can be characterised as rescue archaeology, but under the influence of leading figures such as Modderman and H.T. Waterbolk, they went hand in hand with other ingredients that became characteristic of Dutch archaeology, such as palaeo-ecological investigations and research into the natural landscape and the relations between sites and landscapes.'5

It is not surprising that, in view of the enormous challenges that confronted Dutch archaeology, most attention and input of available resources went into rescue archaeology. The Monuments Act of 1961 finally brought the option to protect archaeological monuments by providing a legal basis, but in those days there was in fact very little insight in what protection in practice would or should entail. This understanding developed gradually over the next deca-des, and in his 1972 overview of the subject, the initiator of Dutch archaeolo-gical heritage management, R.H.J. Klok, presented an analysis of the various threats to archaeological monuments, the complicated and tedious admini-strative processes involved with legal protection and the legal but also other means by which monuments could be preserved.'" The paper shows how initial efforts led to cooperation with provincial planning departments and other government agencies involved with environmental planning, such as

Staatsbosbeheer (the State Forestry Service). It cautiously alludes to the

possibility that monument protection might be served by more openness to the general public'7 and it goes into such topics as the need for inspection of

(12)

'protec-\i;< i i A i ' O i . o c i c A i . HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHKRIANIIS

38. In a subsequent overview a decade later Klok (1983, 167) concludes that the total input of manpower at that time amounted to 12 persons, including administrative staff. 39. Compare Kristiansen 1992, 57 on the Danish situation. There may he some truth in this, although the notion that all archaeolo-gists would want is to excavate, is a rather primitive misrepresentation that is surely contradicted by the developing 'conservation ethics' since the 1960s (Groenewoudt & Bloemers, this volume).

40. Cf., Klok 1972, 107. This is one aspect t h a t has not changed. At the moment, the national budget still has no provisions specifically intended for the acquisition, restoration or consolidation of archaeological monuments.

41. See Van Regieren Altena 1981 for an account of the first survey from 1972. 42. Cf., Brongers 1976b, 39. The first in the series were the maps published by Brongers 1976 and Stoepker 1977. It is still continued in a modified form. The principles of ar-chaeological cartography in this form were further elaborated by Hallewas in an impor-tant and fundamental study published in 1981.

43. Sarfatij 1980.

44. The so-called Bolwerkgroep report, published in 1979 by the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare (Mimstnie van CRM 1979).

45. Klok 1985, 50.

46. Klok & Vervloet 1983; Waterbolk 1984.

don of archaeological monuments' in the early 1970s was a separate issue that was certainly not firmly embedded in the archaeological community, let alone in society at large. As a result, financial and other resources remained quite limited,'8 which is sometimes attributed to the tendency for rescue

excava-tions to swallow up most resources.'" In reality, resources in general became scarcer due to the rapidly deteriorating economic climate of the 1970s and to a reluctance at the Ministry of Culture to provide even remotely adequate funds for the conservation of archaeological monuments.40 This does not,

however, imply that further developments ceased.

In the early 1970s, the method of systematic archaeological survey was employed for the first time in the Netherlands, rather belatedly when compar-ed to neighbouring countries such as Germany and the Unitcompar-ed Kingdom, but predictably, with great success." A number of regions were surveyed in great detail in the following two decades, although this never led to a continuing, systematic field survey of the entire country.

In addition to this, the firmly established Dutch research tradition of stud-ying archaeological sites from an ecological perspective and in relation with the surrounding landscape, began to exert its influence in the conservation sector. One result was the start of a series of Archaeological Maps of the

Neth-erlands 1:100 000 with an 'archaeologically relevant background' consisting of

a palaeogeographical reconstruction.42 This was followed in 1978 by an effort

to start the protection of (parts of) archaeological landscapes, with a variety of sites and natural landscapes in a well preserved condition and no direct threat from land use reforms or other destructive measures. Although the initiative led to important new impulses and a new outlook on monument protection," these so-called 'star-monuments' could not, however, be realised because the Monuments Act provided insufficient legal tools to con-serve parts of landscapes as archaeological recon-serves.

Conservation of historic landscapes was not, however, neglected. In this respect, an important decision was taken by the Secretary of State for Culture in 1972. In view of the preparation of the 'third national planning policy state-ment' by the government (Derde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening), the Raad voor

Natuurbescherming (Council for Nature Conservation) was asked for advice on

how to arrange for the preservation of natural and cultural values in view of the decisions to be taken about the future development of the country. This resulted in a major project in which a group of specialists from various disciplines produced a combination of maps with an inventory and

assessment of natural and cultural values in the Dutch landscape.44 These are

not a systematic and complete overview, nor do they provide a fully integrated approach. Nevertheless, it is one of the first attempts to success-fully combine input from different disciplines (historical and physical geography, geology, archaeology, architecture) in a product specifically intended to influence major policy decisions in the field of environmental planning. The project as such certainly had its effect,45 although tangible

results in the planning process remained limited.

(13)

around the same time as similar publications elsewhere in Europe started to appear.*' Also, through conferences organised by the Council of Europe in Florence (1984) and Nice (1987),1H an international debate arose on these

issues where formerly, as was already observed with some surprise by Henry Cleere in the introduction to his 1984 volume Approaches to the Archaeological

Heritage, this had been lacking.

47 See, for example, contributions in I-ambrick 1985

tH C c m m i l o l H u r o p c 1987 and 1989. 19 I.ipe 1984, 1-2.

50 (Iroenewoudt & Blocmers, this volume 51 Macmnes & Wickham-Jones 1992. 52 Bloemers, van Pelt & Perk 1990. 53 Rnorda & Wiemer 1992, Zoetbrood M , , / , (his volume

10

I-UTURH HI VI I OI'MHNTS

It is evident that during the 1970s and especially the early 1980s, develop-ments on the national as well as the international level showed important new trends. On the one hand, archaeological monuments, in the sense of movable as well as immovable parts of the cultural heritage, were no longer seen pri-marily as objects of study but as cultural resources to be of use and benefit in the present and future. '" On the other hand, there was a clear trend to re-place the concept of 'care and protection' of monuments with a new ap-proach, the management of these archaeological resources, and it was quickly realised that this cannot be done by viewing them in isolation. It has to be done in context: of the natural and the man-made landscape and therefore on a regional scale,10 of political developments such as the green debate,51 and

of the ongoing environmental planning process.

As mentioned in the introduction, virtually nothing of these trends was reflected in the revised Dutch Monuments Act of 1988 which lacks proper instruments for more dynamic forms of heritage management and leaves very limited room for initiative at the local and especially the provincial level. The law has some important improvements on the previous edition, but it is large-ly concerned with traditional - and, to be fair, unavoidable - subjects such as rules for legal protection, excavation permits, and the deposition of finds. This is obviously due to the fact that new laws usually confirm ways of thinking that have fully crystallized, and in part it is the result of other existing legislation, for example concerning private ownership of monuments or instruments that would allow forms of protection and conservation of a larger context of monuments. Nevertheless, all this should not hide the fact that the archaeological community at large has not been very receptive to the new ideas.

Although 1988 seems to be an adequate symbolic point in time to end the formative period of Dutch archaeological heritage management, some chang-es are inevitably slow. To this day, and dchang-espite the fact that university ar-chaeology and heritage management have remained integrated in the Nether-lands and that there is close cooperation in fieldwork and syntheses of the results of rescue excavations, there is only minimal academic interest in the management of the research base. One exception is the work of the RAAP-foundation, which started in 1985 as an employment project by the University of Amsterdam. It has developed into a research firm that is now largely inde-pendent of the university, specialised in prospection and valuation but with a clear commitment to the development of heritage management.52

Another fortunate exception to the lack of academic involvement has been the creation, in 1989, of a new national archaeological database and informa-tion system connected with a <;is, that was developed in close cooperainforma-tion between the three major university-departments of archaeology and the Ron.'1

(14)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

An important new development is the use of this system in the production of a variety of archaeological maps by the ROB. Some of these are in the tradi-tion that was started in 1845 and have developed into a combinatradi-tion of palaeogeographical landscape reconstruction and archaeological information. Others are simple representations of scheduled and protected monuments, to be used for legal and planning processes. The official Archaeological Monu-ments Maps (AMK - Archeologische Monumenten Kaarten} developed by the ROB in cooperation with the provinces, are the most important product in this category. A third type of map are predictive maps and policy guidance

maps.51 This involves the production of a succession of maps containing

diffe-rent kinds of information, to be combined for various purposes or to be used by themselves. In fact, the variety of products has grown so rapidly that it has been found necessary to devise an unambiguous terminology for them." Es-sentially, these maps are predictive spatial models of the distribution and quality of the surviving archaeological record in a specific region or even nationwide. They are intended as tools in the planning process and to facilita-te policy decisions at all levels. In turn, these maps can be combined with information on other aspects of cultural landscapes into integrated historic landscape assessment maps.

The production of these kinds of maps still has many methodological prob-lems, but they are an essential element in a proactive heritage policy and for the successful integration of archaeological heritage management in the process of environmental planning and spatial development. In April 1997, the ROB completed the first generation of the nationwide (Indicatieve Kaart

van Archeologische Waarden (IKAW - Indicative Map of Archaeological Values)

at a scale of 1:50 000.5" In 1996, in a joint pilot project involving close

co-operation between several public and private institutes, the first historic landscape assessment map for a specific region, the so-called Groene Hart

Kaart, was produced which can be considered the first serious attempt to an

integrated approach with constituent elements from archaeology, historic architecture, historical geography, and man-made nature.5' Although the

results of this work are not unambiguous and further methodology and implication studies comparable to, for example, the Historic Landscape Project of English Heritage," will be necessary, the work on the Groene Han

Kaart has pointed the way. Several Dutch provinces have started a project to

develop integrated historic landscape assessment maps which - in the future - are to be used in the management of cultural landscapes. Hopefully, these initiatives will be followed by all provinces and, eventually, by a national policy in this field.

That a new proactive approach and integration of archaeological heritage management in the ongoing environmental planning process is necessary, was underlined in 1994 with the publication of a study on the degradation of ar-chaeological values in the Dutch soil between 1950 and 1990.5" The

conclu-sion was that almost exactly one-third of the archaeological values still 54 Dccbcn H ,ii present in 1950, had disappeared in 1990 (fig. 3). This study was one of a this voium"! series of reports that followed the restructuring and formal policy change of 55. Eerden & Rensink loo,,. the ROB which, after preliminary discussions, was started in 1992 and in some 56. Deeben, Hallewas, Kolen cSi Wicmer, W3yS is Still an ongoing prOCCSS.

thls voll"m Part of this development is connected with the implementation of the Con-57. Borger & Vcstcrs I Q Q h -v T 1 i j TM

58. Olivier 1004,8-10 vention of Malta m the Netherlands. The convention, which resulted from the so. Groenewoudt, Haiiewas & Zoetteood, activities of the Council of Europe in the 1980s, was signed by the Dutch

government at Malta in January 1992. Although it has not yet been ratified by

1004.

(15)

Figure 3 The degradation of archaeo-logical values in the Dutch subsoil since 1950 and its mam causes The category 'other' encompasses mining and forestry. The diagram does not show losses of archaeological in-formation from before 1950.

agriculture (23.2)

building (7.2) infrastucture (2.0) other (0.7)

60. See also Van Marrewi|k & Brandt, this volume.

61. Kars, this volume

62. See, for example. Eerden, Huisman & Visser 1997; Van Marrewijk & Brandt, this volume.

63. See, for example the discussions m Verband der Landesarchäologcn in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland l'»') l

12

parliament, its content and purpose have been an important impetus for change in the existing order of Dutch archaeology because it is evident that the existing system is not capable of coping with the demands made by the convention.''"

Obviously, the existing Monuments Act will need to be changed to im-plement articles 5 and 6 of the convention, which are concerned with the integrated conservation of the archaeological heritage and the financing of archaeological research and conservation. But it has been realised that the the 'archaeological infrastructure' will also need to be changed in. order to make new legal tools effective. For example, the now thirty-year-old system of provincial archaeologists outlined above will soon be abolished. Integration of the national and provincial levels is as vital as ever, but Dutch provinces need to develop their own, regional policies in complementary cooperation with that of the state. The centralised system whereby the ROB processed all information on planning projects and was responsible for taking the actions necessary, has resulted in an increasing number of projects being submitted for evaluation. Work has been accumulating to such an extent that the system can no longer function properly at the national level. Most of this work can be done more efficiently at regional and local levels, with the ROB functioning as a national research and administrative centre. Although developments that are highly susceptible to the political and economic tides are difficult to pre-dict, in the near future all provinces will presumably have their own archaeo-logical service and a further increase in the number of town archaeologists may be expected.

As with similar institutions elsewhere in Europe, attention at the ROB is increasingly focused, for example, on fundamental research in the field of conservation,<l' or on providing planners with ideas and concepts that will

allow them to incorporate the visible remains as well as parts of buried land-scapes in environmental planning.1'2 Of special importance is the development

of instruments for quality control in all sorts of archaeological work in order to facilitate the much more professionalised and businesslike archaeological process envisaged for the future. Although a truly commercial archaeology will probably not be allowed to develop in the Netherlands and as in other countries - private companies have so far been regarded with suspicion,"' there will be more room for private initiative in the future. In 1997, a feasibili-ty study has been started to determine if an independent firm can be

(16)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERI-AN11S

64. Groenewoudt 1994; Grocncwoudt & Bloomers, this volume.

65. Recent and quite clear statements about this in Olivier 1996 for England and Horn

1995 for Germany.

66. A first general overview of the qualily of available archaeological information has just been published in Groenewoudt & Lauwerier

1997.

blished which can take over most of the excavations now still conducted by the ROB and provide these and other services to other levels of government that may want to use them. For the Netherlands, with a Monuments Act that explicitly rules out the possibility to excavate for any organisation except the ROB, universities and municipal archaeological services, this is an important step.

In any case, it will necessitate the establishing of recognised standards for archaeological work, including norms and specifications as one element of a system of quality control. The development of such standards has started and will involve a process of consultation at the national level. Although this will probably be quite complicated, this is one area where international compari-son and consultation is badly needed. Only as far as methods for valuation are concerned, does there seem to be an international debate."4 An especially

thorny poblem is selection. Obviously, administrative decisions concerning the archaeological heritage will always be influenced by political, financial and other constraints. New legislation will, however, put increased demands to society at large on behalf of the archaeological heritage and this requires a new approach to the problem of selection with respect to archaeological con-tent. As elsewhere in Europe,'0 it is essential to replace 'black box' decisions

and it is necessary to find an approach that will meet two demands.

On the one hand, a framework for selection must be provided within which recommendations for protection or excavation can be made in such a way that these recommendations make sense with respect to archaeological con-tent. This requires very extensive consultation and implies the need to identi-fy research achievements which will provide reference points for decisions involving selection. This work has only just begun and needs to be developed further, with syntheses that are the basis for further research as well as guide-lines for management recommendations."" A second important demand is that the framework and procedures must make sense from a legal, administrative and economic point of view. This means that they need to be transparent, coherent and understandable, and that criteria should preferably be unambi-guous. Finding an adequate answer to these demands will be one of the ma-jor challenges in the near future, one that will involve specific research and require considerable effort from the archaeological community.

At the moment, it is difficult to predict what role the universities and the ROB as a research centre will play in more traditional forms of archaeological research. For the moment, the ROB has chosen a limited number of clearly specified research projects, in which the institute's resources for analysis and synthesis of rescue excavations will be used. Unfortunately, however, Dutch university institutes have suffered severe cutbacks in funding and staffing in the 1990s. In view of the fact that a successful heritage management policy and the legal changes that are now being prepared will inevitably also lead to a substantial increase in unavoidable excavations, this poses a serious threat to Dutch archaeology. After all, with masses of new data being generated, the need will grow to convert this information into relevant knowledge about the past by critical analyses and syntheses. At the same time, this knowledge is vital feedback into the heritage management cycle (fig. 1), in order to make relevant choices for the future.

One solution to this problem may be found in the system that is now con-templated to implement the financial paragraph of the Malta Convention. This may be done not only - or only partially - by burdening developers with the costs of archaeological activities necessitated by their schemes. In addi-tion, a fund may be created which will cover part of these costs, especially

(17)

those of excavations. The technicalities of how to generate the money for this fund and how to distribute it, are complicated. However, it will lift excessive burdens from individual developers and thereby prevent inequality of justice. On the other hand, a suitable mechanism of distributing financial support may stimulate research that is truly relevant, especially when it can be used not only to fund excavations but also to provide resources for the research necessary to use this for gaining knowledge about the past.

If such a system were indeed adopted, this would further change the struc-ture of Dutch archaeology. Other organisational and structural changes will affect the management of the underwater and nautical heritage,"7 which has

become firmly embedded in the ROB since 1992, and the involvement of the general public. Private enterprise has already moved into this field, and the recently privatised State Museum of Antiquities has plans to develop into a national information centre.

Although the next decade will surely see a further decentralisation and, hope-fully, broader political and public support, some scepsis about current poli-cies remains. A critical debate has arisen, which ranges from concerns about the future of academic archaeology,"8 to fundamental criticism on the strategy

of creating archaeological reserves."'1 New concepts such as 'sustainable

development' and 'cultural biography of landscapes' are introduced,70 while

at the same time there are doubts about the effectiveness of conservation strategies in a densely populated country such as the Netherlands. This is a complicated task, especially in the highly urbanised western part of the country and some problems may only be soluble in the context of an inte-grated planning process at a European scale. Nevertheless, developments over the past decades, both nationally and internationally, have led to diffe-rent and hopefully better perspectives on how to manage the archaeological heritage. If the analysis of the historical development presented here proves to have been more or less correct in the years to come, we have only just crossed the threshold to a new phase. The challenge will be nothing less than to prevent the twenty-first century witnessing the almost complete erasure of the archaeological record in the Netherlands.

REFEREN« i s

Beek, M. et al., 1975: Victor de Stuers. Holland op zijn smalst: ingeleid en

toege-licht door een werkgroep van het Kunsthistorisch Instituut der Universiteit van Amsterdam, Bussum 1975.

Bloemers, J.H.F., C.W. van Pelt & F.A. Perk 1990: Cultuurhistorie en milieu

in 2015. Op weg naar een landschap zonder verleden?, Amsterdam.

Borger, G.J. & P.H.C. Vesters 1996: Cultuurhistorie in het Groene Hart, een

overzicht en een waarderingskaart, Amsterdam.

Braat, W.C., 1932: De archeologie van de Wieringermeer, OMI. 13, 15-58. Brongers, J.A., 1973: 1833. Reuvens in Drenthe. Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis

van de Nederlandse archeologie in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw,

Bussum (Nederlandse Oudheden, 4).

67 Maarieveid, this volume Brongers, J. A., 1976a: Material for a History of Dutch Archaeology up to

;;:^:;::r

109 1922, ««»26,74z

70 Among others, Groenewoudt & Brongers, J.A., 1976b: Air Photography and Celtic Field Research in the Ncther-Bioemers, this volume; Kolen i W5 lands, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Oudheden, 6).

(18)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

Cleere, H. (ed.) 1984: Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, Cambridge (New Directions in Archaeology).

Cleere, H., 1989: Introduction: the Rationale of Archaeological Heritage Management, in: H. Cleere (ed.), Archaeological Heritage Management in

the Modem World, London, 1-19.

Council of Europe 1987 : Archaeology and Planning. Report of the Florence

Colloquy, Strasbourg (Architectural Heritage Reports and Studies, 5).

Council of Europe 1989: Archaeology and Major Public Works. Report of the

Nice Colloquy, Strasbourg (Architectural Heritage Reports and Studies,

12).

Daniel, G., & C. Renfrew 1988: The Idea of Prehistory, Edinburgh. Duparc, F.J., 1975: Een eeuw strijd voor Nederlands cultureel erfgoed,

's-Gravenhage.

Eerden, M., M. Huisman & H. Visser (red.) 1997: Archeologisch erfgoed goed

beheerd; behoud, inrichting en beheer in het landelijk gebied, Den Haag

(CRM -reeks, 9).

Eerden, M., & E. Rensink 1996: Van venvachtings kaart tot beleidskaan:

terminologie en toepasbaarheid van archeologische kaarten,

Amersfoort/Amsterdam.

Es W.A. van, 1972: The Origins and Development of the ROB for Archaeolo-'gical Investigations in the Netherlands, BROB 22, 1972, 17-71.

Es W.A. van, J.M. Poldermans, H. Sarfatij & J. Sparreboom 1982: Het

bodem-archief bedreigd. Archeologie en planologie in de binnensteden van Nederland,

Amersfoort/'s-Gravenhage.

Es, W.A. van, H. Sarfatij & P.J. Woltering (red.) 1988: Archeologie in

Neder-land. De rijkdom van het bodemarchief, Amsterdam/Amersfoort.

Groenewoudt, B.J., 1994: Prospectie, waardering en selectie van archeologische

vindplaatsen: een beleidsgerichte verkenning van middelen en mogelijkheden,

Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten, 17).

Groenewoudt, B.J., O.P. Hallewas & P.A.M. Zoetbrood 1994: De degradatie

van de archeologische betekenis van de Nederlandse bodem, Amersfoort

(Interne Rapporten ROB, 8).

Groenewoudt, B.J., & R.C.G.M. Lauwerier 1997: Kennisatlas, stand van kennis

en kennisleemten; een snelle inventarisatie, Amersfoort (Interne Rapporten

ROB, 33).

Hallewas, O.P., 1981: Archaeological Cartography between Marsdiep and IJ,

**8031,219-72.**

Horn H.G., 1995: Einleitende Bemerkungen zum Versuch einer Standort-bestimmung der brandenburgischen und nordrhein-westfälischen Boden-denkmalpflege, in: H. Koschik (Hrsg.), Situation und Perspektiven

ar-chäologischer Denkmalpflege in Brandenburg und Nordrhein-Westfalen, Köln/

Bonn. (Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland, 4) 11-5.

Klok, R.H.J., 1972: Twenty-Five Years ROB: Ten Years of Protection of Monu-ments, BROB 22, 81-118.

Klok, R.H.J., 1983: Voorlopige evaluatie 20 jaar archeologische monumenten-zorg, Heemschut 60, 164-7.

Klok, R.H.J., 1985: Archeologie en ruimtelijke consequenties, in: Geoplan,

Archeologie en ruimtelijke ordening, Amsterdam, 41-62.

Klok, R.H.J., & J.A.J. Vervloet 1983: Pleidooi voor de bescherming van cul-tuurhistorische of historisch-landschappelijke structuren, BKNOB 82, 2-21. Knoop, R.R., & C.A.C. Jansen (red.) 1994: De plaats van de gemeentelijke

archeologie binnen het archeologische vakgebied, Leiden (Archeologisch

Informatie Cahier, 7).

(19)

Kolen, J., 1995: Recreating (in) Nature, Visiting History. Second Thoughts on Landscape Reserves and their Role in the Preservation and Experience of the Historic Environment, Archaeological Dialogues 2, 127-59.

Kristiansen, K., 1992: From Romanticism, through Antiquarianism, to a His-torical View of Nature: the Case of Denmark, in: L. Macinnes & C.R. Wickham-Jones (eds.), All Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green

Debate, Oxford (Oxbow Monograph, 21), 52-64.

Lambrick, G. (ed.) 1985: Archaeology and Nature Conservation, Oxford. Lipe, W.D., 1984: Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources, in: H. Cleere

(ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, Cambridge (New Directions in Archaeology).

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., 1994: Another Participant's View on Dutch Archaeo-logy in Postwar Times, Archaeological Dialogues 1, 38-45.

Macinnes, L., & C.R. Wickham-Jones 1992: All Natural Things. Archaeology

and the Green Debate, Oxford (Oxbow Monograph, 21).

Ministerie van CRM 1979: Natuurwaarden en Cultuurwaarden in het landelijk

gebied. Een inventarisatie, 's-Gravenhage.

Moberg, C.-A., 1981: From Artefacts to Timetables to Maps (to Mankind?): Regional Traditions in Archaeological Research in Scandinavia, World

Archaeology 13, 209-21.

Modderman, P.J.R., 1951: Het oudheidkundig onderzoek van de oude woongronden in het Land van Maas en Waal, OMI. 32, 25-61.

Modderman, P.J.R., 1955: De belangstelling voor de vaderlandse archeologie, Groningen/Djakarta, (Openbare les RU Utrecht).

Olivier, A.C.H., 1994: Archaeology Review 1993-94, London.

Olivier, A., 1996: Frameworks for our Past. A Review of Research Frameworks,

Strategies and Perceptions, London.

Regieren Altena, J.F. van, 1981: Preface, in: G.F. IJzereef, Bronze Age Animal

Bones from Bovenkarspel. The Excavations at Het Valkje, Amersfoort, 7-12

(Nederlandse Oudheden, 10).

Regieren Altena, H.H. van, 1990: On the Growth of Young Medieval Archaeo-logy: a Recollection, in: J.C. Besteman, J.M. Bos & H.A. Heidinga (eds.),

Medieval Archaeology in the Netherlands, Assen, 1-7.

Reinders, R., 1986: Scheepsarcheologie in Nederland, in: Verantwoord onder wafer, Amsterdam, 15-40.

Reuvens, C.J.C., C. Leemans & L.J.F. Janssen 1845: Romeinsche,

Germaan-sche of GalliGermaan-sche oudheden gevonden in Nederland, België en een gedeelte der aangrenzende landen, Leiden.

Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROIS), 1992:

Jaarver-slag, Amersfoort.

KOU, 1995: Het Verleden Zeker. Naar een meer effectieve archeologische

monu-mentenzorg in Nederland, Amersfoort.

ROB, 1997: Geef de toekomst een verleden. Beleidsplan 1997-2000, Amersfoort. Roebroeks, W., 1993: Naar een politieke discussie in de Nederlandse

ar-cheologie, in: R. Knoop (red.), Arar-cheologie, maatschappij en ethiek, Leiden, 39-42 (Archeologisch Informatie Cahier, 5).

Roorda, L, & R. Wiemer 1992: The ARCHIS Project: Towards a New National Archaeological Record in the Netherlands, in: C.U. Larsen (ed.), Sites and

Monuments. National Archaeological Records, K0benhavn, 117-22.

Sarfatij, H., 1980: De Alblasserwaard-Vijfherenlandcn: een archeologisch ster-gebied, Nederlands Archievenblad 84, 456-81.

Sarfatij, H., 1990: Verborgen steden. Stadsarcheologie in Nederland, Amsterdam. Schiffer, M.B., & G.J. Gumerman (eds.) 1977: Conservation Archaeology.

(20)

A R C H AHOI.Or.IGAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

Schnapp, A., 1993: La Conquête du Passé: aux origines de l'archéologie, Paris. Slofstra, J., 1994: Recent Developments in Dutch Archaeology. A

Scientific-Historical Outline, Archaeological Dialogues 1, 9-33.

Stoepker, H., 1977: Medieval Parish Churches in Northeastern North Brabant and Limburg, i, RROR 27, 217-36.

Verband der Landesarchäologen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hrsg.) 1994: Archäologische Denkmalpflege und Grabungsfirmen, Stuttgart.

Verwers, W.J.H., 1980: Goirle, grafheuvels op de Rechte Heide, Bussum, etc. (Archeologische monumenten in Nederland, 8).

Waals, J.D. van der, 1980: Oudheid en grootheid. Archeologie en nationalis-me, in: M. Chamalaun & H.T. Waterbolk (red.), Voltooid verleden tijd?, Amsterdam, 245-56.

Waterbolk, H.T., 1973: A.E. van Giffen 1884-1973, Palaeohistona 15, 7-34. Waterbolk, H.T., 1981: Archaeology in the Netherlands: Delta Archaeology,

World Archaeology 13, 240-54.

Waterbolk, H.T., 1984: Archeologie en landschap, Haarlem (zevende Kroon-voordracht).

Willems, W.J.H., 1992: Archäologie in den Niederlanden und der Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek/L'archéologie aux Pays-Bas et le Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, in:

Spuren-sicherung. Archäologische Denkmalpflege in der Euregio Maas-Rhein, Mainz,

295-315.

(21)

APPENDIX

THE ACT PROVIDING I OH I I I I . PRESERVATION Öl MONUMENTS A N D HISTORIC. BUILDINGS OE HISTORIC AND ARTISTIC IMPORTANCE (MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS A( l )

We Beatrix, by the grace of God Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Oran-ge-Nassau, etc., etc., etc.

Greetings to all who shall see or hear these presents! Be it known:

Whereas We have considered that it is desirable to establish new provisions for the preservation of architectural and archeological monuments and to involve local and authorities in this to a greater extent;

We, therefore, having heard the Council of State, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree:

( I I A I ' l l R I GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1

For the purposes of this act and the provisions based upon it, the following definitions shall apply:

a Our Minister: Our Minister of Health, Welfare and Cultural Affairs; b Monuments:

1 All objects constructed at least fifty years ago which are of public inte-rest because of their beauty, scientific significance or cultural and histo-ric value;

2 Sites which are of public interest because of the presence of the objects referred to under 1 ;

c Archeological monuments: monuments referred to in b under 2; d Protected monuments: immovable monuments recorded in the registers

established by this act;

e Religious monuments: immovable monuments which are the property of a particular denomination, congregation, parish or church organisation and which are used exclusively or mainly for worship;

f Town and village conservation areas: groups of immovable objects which are of public interest because of their beauty, their spatial and structural relationship or their cultural and historical value and which include at least one monument;

g Protected town and village conservation areas: town and village conserva-tion areas which have been designated as such by Our Minister of Hou-sing, Physical Planning and the Environment under the provisions of Sec-tion 35 of this act, from the date of publicaSec-tion of such designaSec-tion in the Government Gazette;

h Archeological activities: activities involving excavation and intended to locate or examine monuments;

i Monuments and Historic Buildings Council: the Monuments and Historic Buildings Council referred to in Section 50.

Section 2

1 The destination of the monument shall be taken into account in the im-plementation of this act.

2 No decision under the provisions of this act shall be taken on a religious monument without consultation with the owner.

(22)

Al« l IM l'LOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

< IIAI'TER II PROTECTED MONUMENTS

§ 1 Designation Section 3

1 Our Minister may, either at the request of interested parties or of his own accord, designate monuments as protected monuments.

2 Before Our Minister takes a decision, he shall request the advice of the municipal council in the municipality in which the monument is located. In the event of the monument being located outside a built-up area as refer-red to in Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 1935, 554) he shall also consult the Provincial Executive. 3 Our Minister shall notify by registered letter the parties registered in the

land register as owners or as the holders of any other rights, the registered mortgagees and the party applying for designation, in the event of an such an application, of the request for advice referred to in subsection 2. 4 The Burgomaster and Aldermen shall provide the interested parties

refer-red to in subsection 3 with the opportunity to attend and conduct consul-tations as referred to in subsection 2 either in person or through an au-thorised representative.

5 The Municipal Council shall produce a recommendation within five months of the request for advice referred to in subsection 2 having been submitted; in the case of the Provincial Executive, this period shall be four months.

6 Having heard the Monuments and Historic Buildings Council, Our Minis-ter shall arrive at a decision within ten months of the request for advice having been submitted and in the event of designation having been re-quested, within ten months of having received such a request.

Section 4

1 Our Minister shall notify the Municipal Council and the Provincial Executi-ve of his decision. In the eExecuti-vent of a designation, the Burgomaster and Aldermen shall make this decision open to public inspection at the munici-pal secretariat. The Burgomaster shall announce such an inspection in the customary manner.

2 Our Minister shall notify those parties registered in the land register as owners or as the holders of any other rights, the registered mortgagees and the party applying for designation, in the event of such an application, of his decision. In the event that designation is to take place, the parties shall be notified by registered letter.

Section 5

From the date on which the notification referred to in Section 3, subsection 3 has taken place until such time as the entering into the register as referred to in Section 6 or Section 7 has taken place or until it has been established that the monument is not to be entered in one of these registers, Sections 11 to 3 (inclusive) shall apply by analogy.

Section 6

1 Our Minister shall keep a register of protected monuments for each muni-cipality. He shall enter in the register each monument he has designated provided no appeal against such designation has been filed or provided such an appeal has been rejected.

(23)

2 Our Minister shall send a copy of the entry in the register to the Provincial Executive, the Burgomaster and Aldermen, the mortgage registry, the land registry and the ships' mortgage register.

3 The copy sent to the Burgomaster and Aldermen shall be open to public inspection at the municipal secretariat. Any person who so wishes shall be supplied with copies at his own expense.

4 The copy sent to the mortgage registry shall be entered in the public regis-ters. The mortgage registry shall record the designation as a protected monument of the site concerned in accordance with regulations issued by Our Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment. Section 7

1 If a monument is not located within the boundaries of a municipality, Sec-tion 3, subsecSec-tions 2 to 6 (inclusive), SecSec-tion 4, subsecSec-tion 1 and SecSec-tion 6 shall not be applicable.

2 Before taking a decision relating to a monument as referred to in subsec-tion 1, Our Minister shall consult the Monuments and Historic Buildings Council.

3 Our Minister shall take a decision on a request for designation within five months of such a request having been received.

4 Our Minister shall keep a national register of the monuments referred to in subsection 1 and designated by him, provided no appeal against such designation has been filed or provided such an appeal has been rejected. A copy of the registration shall be sent to the body which manages the area in question, to the mortgage registry, the land registry and the ships' mort-gage registry, and if the monument is located within the boundaries of a province, to the Provincial Executive. Section 6, subsection 4 shall apply by analogy.

Section 8

1 Our Minister is authorised to make changes in the register by virtue of his office or at the request of parties with an interest in the matter. Sections 3 to 7 (inclusive) shall apply by analogy.

2 If, in the opinion of Our Minister, such a change is insignificant or if it is the removal from the register of a monument which no longer exists, Sec-tion 3 shall not apply by analogy.

Section 9

1 The mortgage registry, the land registry and the ships' mortgage registry shall notify Our Minister within fourteen days of any change in the person or body in whose name a protected monument is registered in the land registry or of any change in its description. Our Minister shall enter such amendments in the register.

2 Our Minister shall notify the Provincial Executive and the Burgomaster and Aldermen of such amendments.

Section 10

If the copies of the register do not correspond with the register or with each other, only those monuments referred to on the copy entered in the public registers shall qualify as protected monuments.

(24)

A K C H A l . O l . O r . i r . A L HERITAGE MANAURMl'.NT IN THE NETHERLANDS

§ 2 Permits for alteration, demolition or removal Section 11

1 It is prohibited to damage or destroy a protected monument.

2 It is prohibited without a written permit or contrary to the stipulations of a written permit:

a to demolish, disturb, move or in any way change a protected monument; b to restore, use or allow a protected monument to be used in such a way as

to mar its appearance or to endanger it in any way. Section 12

1 An application for a permit as referred to in Section 11 shall be submitted in writing to the Burgomaster and Aldermen. It shall be accompanied by the information they require.

2 If the applicant has not submitted the required information, the Burgomas-ter and Aldermen shall, within one month of the receipt of the application, grant the applicant fourteen days to supply the required information. 3 If the provisions of subsection 2 have been applied and the applicant has

not supplied the required information within the period of fourteen days referred to in that subsection, the application shall be considered inadmis-sible from the first day after the fourteen-day period.

4 If the provisions of subsection 2 have been applied and, in the opinion of the Burgomaster and Aldermen, the applicant has not supplied sufficient information as referred to in subsection 2, they shall declare the applica-tion inadmissible within fourteen days of the day on which the informaapplica-tion was received.

5 If the provisions of subsection 2 have been applied and, in the opinion of the Burgomaster and Aldermen, the applicant has supplied the required information referred to in subsection 2, the application is admissible and the period referred to Section 16, subsection 3 or Section 17, subsection 3 shall commence the day after the day on which the applicant submitted the information in question.

d If the provisions of subsection 2 have not been applied, the application shall be considered admissible.

7 If the provisions of subsection 4 have not been applied, the application is admissible and the period referred to in Section 16, subsection 3 or Sec-tion 17, subsecSec-tion 3 shall commence the day after the day on which the applicant has submitted the required information referred to in subsec-tion 2.

8 If the application is admissible, the Burgomaster and Aldermen shall make it open to public inspection at the municipal secretariat. Should the ap-plication contain information which it is justifiable not to disclose on the grounds of business confidentiality, or should it be possible to deduce such information from an application, the Burgomaster and Aldermen may grant a written request from the applicant that such information should not be made public. The Burgomaster shall give notification of such an in-spection in the customary manner and of the possibility of lodging an ob-jection with the Burgomaster and Aldermen within fourteen days. If Sec-tion 17, subsecSec-tion 1 is applicable, the Burgomaster and Aldermen shall immediately forward to our Minister any objections received within the specified period.